 Good evening. We're going to call this meeting of the city of Montpelier Development Review Board to order. My name is Phil Zallendry. I serve as the chair. The other members to my right are Jack Lindley, Cabello Carl, Meredith Crandall staff, Daniel Richardson, Ryan Kane, right on time. First item on the agenda is approval of the agenda. Approval of the agenda as printed. Motion by Jack. Second. Second by Kevin. Any further discussion? I just make one addendum that we remove item number two, which is the roll call of the identification of the five members. Since the charter change has passed, we no longer have to identify who the five voting members are because we're back up to a seven member board. So was that effective upon signing or July? I thought it was July 1st, but you're saying it's effective now. I believe it was actually May 1st that it was effective. Okay. Excellent. Which is that's why I skipped that item on the agenda. Yes. So I think we just take notice of that and move on without it. So we have a motion and a second for the agenda. All those in favor please signify by raising their right hands. The agenda has been approved. There are no comments from the chair this evening. So we'll move on to approval or review of the minutes from May 7 and May 21. I note that we don't have a quorum to adopt the May 7 minutes because only Dan and Jack were present and we have the same difficulty on May 21st. Only Dan and Kevin were present. So we'll have to... I believe I was present on the... Oh, I'm sorry. You got Ryan here. You got three. Chris, I'm now going to consider that the five. One, two, three. It was the last of the five meetings under the charter change hadn't been adopted. So I think we could approve. We just said it was effective May 1st. That's true. Let's adopt the May 21st minutes. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes as they're presented. I'll second. Motion by Kevin, second by Dan. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion qualified to act please signify by raising your right hands. May 21st meeting minutes have been adopted. May 7th, we'll just have to stay in the bullpen. Bill Roger and Kate return. Next item on the agenda is an application for sketch plan review for a two lot subdivision at 3 Whittier Street. It's an applicant here. Leave pictures from when we bought the house. Thank you. Get nicer. Thank you. It's Joe and Lucy Ferrata and Don Marsh. We get there. Sorry. Thanks. Thanks, son. So please identify yourselves through the record. Lucy Ferrata. Thanks. Thanks son of granny or engineering. Um, before we get started, I just want to touch base on sketch plan review. Meredith, can you give us a brief synopsis of what sketch plan review consists of under the new ordinance because um, for years, we've been dealing with sketch plan review under the former ordinance and my understanding it's is subsequently different. Um, so for sketch plan review under the new ordinance, um, we need a complete application for consideration and the purpose of sketch plan is just to provide the applicant with an opportunity to consult with and receive feedback from the development review board prior to spending time and money preparing detailed plans and during the sketch plan review, there's really three key things that the development review board needs to do. They need to make recommendations to guide the applicant in preparing more detailed plans. Um, if there's any additional application materials needed, then they need to be requested at that time. And if the development review board believes that additional advisory committees need to review the application that have not done so already, then they may request that. And then after sketch plan, the applicants have a year to meet all of those requirements, um, to meet the subdivision rules and file a new application for final approval that will be a new permit number. Not sure if that's what you were looking for. No, that's exactly it. Okay. Thanks. Well done. Um, is the second level of review. It's we go from sketch plan to final. There's no more preliminary correct. You go from sketch plan to final. Um, and in final, that's when you actually make a full decision on what's allowed. All right. So boiled some of that off for you. And so this is really our our initial review of the application. We don't swear any witnesses in. We don't take official testimony because your application is is still subject to, uh, perhaps change in response to our observations and input and things. So it's an informal process and really it's, um, we've always used the characterization. It's we try to provide you with the weather report. Or how we view the project. So that being said, the floor is yours. The project is off 200 on two streets. Joe Lucy's house is at three Whittier Street just off the main street on the way up the hill. The two lots of vision proposed. The second lot would have frontage on main street, but access would be proposed from the common drive from Whittier. Both lots ultimately meet the setback requirements. They both have more than 3000 square feet of usable area. That's less than 30% slopes. There's an existing garage that is there that would partially be on the lot to the proposals that that would be removed. So sort of a straightforward subdivision. The two issues that I think are of importance that came up in the staff review is one. Currently, there's parking in front of this existing garage. We propose that the parking for both lots would be in the front lot along Main Street. There's a sidewalk along Main Street than there's a little bank down and then pre level land. So the parking we were proposed to have be in the front of those lots. The ordinance, the new ordinance indicates that new parking for a new project should be behind the front line of the dwelling of the house. We would ask you to consider to waive that because it doesn't make any sense to put the house up in the front of the lot because then you'd have a difficulty driving around behind it to be able to park. So the logical, this is an infill, the logical development of it, we believe would be to have those parking up front. It's below, it's probably about five feet in elevation below Main Street. So it's not really butting on Main Street but it would be there. The other issue that BPW brought up was we don't have a new house, of course, but is Stormwater runoff. And in that case, the existing garage that'll be removed is nearly as large as a house that you'd end up having anyway. But in addition, if there were to be issues, there is a stormwater swale on Bob Gallin's land that runs nearly to the end of the property and we could divert water runoff if there were an issue to that swale that ultimately goes to the city system. Harrison Ave. So those are the two issues that seem to come up. That's Meredith has others that we have the slope shown. The dark maroon are those slopes that are over 30% and we avoid virtually all of that. And it's mostly there's a steep bank on the outsides of the basically what's there. The connected municipal water and sewer over to Whittier. That's basically so the three Whittier Street building now is two units. That's my understanding. Yes. Right, Lucy? Yes. Yes. And Lucy, could you move your water bottle is in front of the microphone so that we can get you. Thank you. I guess is there a plan to have the building constructed on lot to also be a multifamily? And ultimately, we would like that right now. We can build technically, we can build a single unit and convert it. Ideally, we'd like it to be a two family either right away or eventually so that we have two smaller apartments instead of one larger house. I didn't follow that. Okay. I think the rules say that you can build a single unit on 3000 square feet and convert it to a two family. We would like it to be a two family. That's the ultimate objective. Yes. It currently is a two family. No, the second structure that talking about the new building, the new building. Okay. A lot, a lot, a lot to with I'm with you. What's the square footage on a two unit building? It's the same 3000 because the way the ordinance reads according to the staff report is that any single family dwelling on a conforming lot served by city water sure may be converted to a two family dwelling irrespective of the district density standard. So it says it could be converted. The issue lot one is that's already a lot one's already developed, it's already developed. So Don, you read the new ordinance as, um, as tacitly approving this two step process. A little confusing. But yes, that it that it the way I understand it is that the 3000 it's a 3000 square foot density. But that's for a home and that that ultimately home can be either a single or a duplex. So it's a bit. It's a bit irregular to be frank. I'm glad the new ordinance has stood the test of time. It's almost been here. Here we are. Five months. It's 162 game season. Here we are an opening day with the new ordinance. And okay, um, I think Meredith has summarized it correctly in it, but it does seem I think we're trying to be straight that the goal would be to have a duplex even if you have to, you know, originally approved with lots of bedrooms as a single family dwelling and then converted. It does seem a bit odd. Well, this is not only is it odd, but I think that's it. Have we designed now a backdoor to everything that we approved? You start with a small thing and then you get a big thing. Well, Jack, I would just prefer to approve a two unit building. Are we allowed to do that rather than have them apply for a single? I mean, let's be honest, you know what we're gonna do and what we're getting to. I mean, do they let me ask you, what's the procedure after somebody got a single home a month after it's built? They want to convert it to a two. Do they have to come back to us to convert it? Well, it wouldn't excuse me. It wouldn't have been built. It would have been permitted. Well, all right, it's been permitted. But it's built six months later, it's built, sticks are all up and it's all built. Do they come back again? Well, and this is one of the things that I've been working through with Mike and that it's not clear in the regulations. And at this point, I think it's going to be a judgment call on your part on how you want to make it work both for the new unit that you're planning to approve in part with the subdivision, but also in allowing the the current duplex to stay on a 3000 square foot lot, wait a minute, roughly, I believe. Why are we going into these knots though? It's, it's, it's the awkwardness of the new life. Well, no, but let me let me maybe take a step back. I'm just looking at the the res 3000 standards. And it says that it's my page on this. Okay, so it says that it's a page. Sorry, I'm starting on page two dash 22. But I'm going to I'm going to flip in a second. So under under 2109 C, the use standards figure two dash 15 lists, the uses that are permitted or conditional in the residential 3000 district and then you if you flip to that table two dash 15, which is page two dash 31, it says that one or two two dwelling units or three or four dwelling units are permitted in res three. So are we talking about strictly a density where it has to be one unit per 3000 feet? This is a density question. So this this is not a strictly use question here. This is the density question. And so the that's where we get the section 30 3000 to see for B that says, regardless of what we say about density, you can double it up as long as you meet the other standards of setbacks. Correct. As long as the rest of the lot is conforming, and it's served by city water and sewer. I think to go back a little bit though, it the you're really only a lot to, for instance, you're just approving a 3000 square foot lock. Period. The issue as to how it gets developed later, it's subject to a zoning permit. And that issue, I think you get a zoning permit for the one or two because you now have a lot of 3000 square feet. The issue would come down, I think maybe as to you've got the similar situation lot one where you have existing home that was converted to duplex in conformance with the rules. Is it okay to have that be a 3000 square foot lock? You've seen me if you go backward, you could say yes to that. And that's what is actually called out in the staff comment on page five of the report. Is it the issue here now is more the allowing the what in some case, some in some ways is a non conforming when it comes to the density lot to be created with the subdivision lot one. In some ways is technically non conforming with density unless you use section 3002 C for B. Right, that's what I understood this to be the comment was not about the future structure on lot the proposed lot two, but whether in approving this, we would allow the existing structure on proposed lot one to remain a duplex. And I think from the analysis and it makes that question, I'm a little bit more comfortable with, because like you said, I think this single family doesn't use the word existing. But I view it as if you have an existing single family structure on a 3000 square foot lot, you can convert it to a duplex, I would be much less comfortable with saying you can get a permit under these regulations for a new single family dwelling. And then come back in and try to convert a new structure into I mean, then you're this is getting speculative for an application that's not before us, but this is sketch plan. So that's kind of the point, I guess. But I think because it's an existing structure already, and if you just said, okay, we're going to allocate one unit of density to it as for purposes of this subdivision, under these regulations, I think that that structure could be converted to a duplex, which then I think it makes no sense to require that and just to I wouldn't be opposed to approving the proposed subdivision allowing two lots of two units of density to the proposed lot one, given that without without having to go through some acrobatics of pretending. Yeah, that it was a duplex. Exactly. Right. I think that I think for if you're going to create a new 3000 square foot lot, and the density, I think the intent of the density requirements for the most part is clear that it is in this district, you need 3000 square foot, I think unit of density. And if you're going to have new units of density for a new lot, you need to comply with that. And I would just off the cuff, feel like it would would be sort of a subversion of the intent of the regulations to build a new structure on a newly created lot that's 3000 square feet and then seek to convert it and add another unit of density clearly in excess of what the regulations set out. That said, it isn't clear. And I suppose where it's not clear, there's some benefit given to the landowner. Well, I mean, the question being put before us is whether we turn what seems to be drafted as an exemption, where there's an existing house and somebody wishes to increase the density from what is right now a conforming lot where we would turn it into a non conforming lot, but use this as the magic wand to wave the density requirements. So it would essentially create two lots that would would effectively turn this area into the 1.5 res. Well, it would if you assume that they can then do the same thing on proposed lot two. Right. I think if like you said the purpose of the exemption, it seems to be served well by allowing the existing duplex to remain on 3000 square feet where it doesn't seem served to say you can create a new structure. But I think I mean, I mean, technically, the way the language is written, it says lost again. I mean, it says any single family dwelling on a conforming lot. So I mean, it doesn't say right now, this is a conforming lot and building this would essentially mean, first of all, subdividing it. I think is I mean, that's the problem of this provision is that it's it's it's a conforming lot. Now, cutting it in half is going to turn it into a non conforming lot that we're then going to use this subsection B to cure. That seems somewhat reasonable at the same time. I mean, we're creating the subdivision itself at least somewhere in the time frame is creating the is creating a non conformity. Correct. But I think I mean, if this were a just a single family dwelling on lot one, I think we're all in agreement that they could subdivide it into two lots create two conforming lots, and then have a single family dwelling on a conforming lot. How could we not at that point convert both of those single family dwellings into two family dwellings based on the language? I mean, I'm just making a point. No, that's certainly one way to read it. But it isn't clear, I don't think and I think that's what we're trying to kind of discuss is what what is what it was intended when this was drafted. I think there's a lot of language in the new ordinance that's going to require us to work our way through it. And and we're going to set precedent here. I mean, and at some point, the Planning Commission and the Council are going to have to put their heads together and say, Hey, we've got some really confusing stuff in here. We got to clean it up. I mean, there's a number of areas where that where that's going to be necessary. So, you know, we just got to keep in mind what we're doing here now is going to be the first decision on this 3000 res type of zoning and with a with a duplex on on the on one of the two lots. So it seems reasonable to allow obviously the the existing use to continue. And there's no point in going and doing backflips trying to make this thing. Yeah, so I have sort of a question about or something you put out. So say on the existing lot, it was a single family. According to the regs, we can turn that single family into two families, right? So in essence, according to the new regs, that's, that's allowed. You know, so it is in a way conforming according to the new regs, right? Because it has been turned into well, I mean, the problem is, is that right now, it's perfectly fine as being a two family, this doesn't even apply because you have 6000 more than 6000 square feet on the lot. But what you're doing is you're subdividing, and you're understanding that you're turning it into a non conforming so that 3000. Right. But it's I understand part of it is that I'm not saying that what you're proposing to do is unreasonable. But at the same time, what it is is it's a little uncomfortable, at least at first glance, at the way in which we're forcing what seems to be a narrow exemption into a much wider and I think we have to not just not not just for your application, but then that base that effectively means going down the line. Any 3000 square foot lot in this can be halved for density purposes. And so I think we just have to be careful because it in some ways you're you're presenting the perfect laboratory experiment in that you have two situations that you're asking us to apply this on one is the existing house, where you're having the lot. And you're saying, well, let us keep this density because it only makes sense given this application. So stretching subsection B a little bit. And then you say, well, we'd also like to build this duplex here, because it's reasonable. Why would we build a one family unit, and then turn around and come back, and and convert. And that's stretching it even further. But at that point, it no longer looks like a narrow exemption. It basically looks like of anyone can go through and say, I'd like to create in the in in any of these residential, it's not just the 3000, it could be the 6000, or it could be any of the larger districts where you would effectively have the density requirements by using it's written now, anyone with a 3000 square foot lot and a single family home, the way it's written now, not us, but anyone with a single family home and a 3000 square foot lot can convert it to a two. That's the way I read it. Maybe that's well, it's I'm not going to even speculate to a certain extent what people were thinking, but at least the way it's written, it seems to be something that allows an existing lot that has a single family that wants to convert to create a greater density in a particular area. I think that's different, though, and at least distinguishable initially, and I'm not, this is a sketch plan. So part of this is where we're we're sketching out these ideas. That's different than going forward and saying, we're going to create a new lot. And we're going to apply this to this new lot that doesn't have any pre existing conditions on it. It's not as if you have a one family lot on 3000, I mean, one family house on 3000 square feet. And for tax purposes, you want to create a second family unit in there so that you can get rental income or, you know, use this space more effectively. I had a question actually, Meredith about I don't have the zoning map in front of me, but how close are we to the 1500 residential district? Is this you're springing that on me when I don't have the map in my head all the time. But it's down a couple blocks closer to Union school, right? Middle Street, Main Street Middle School, Main Street Middle School. It's sort of a long strip is the 3000 in there. We're about the middle of it. Right. And but I mean, by Loomis, it gets to is does it become 1500? All I have is the little one. It might be the next block. Is it J Street? There you go, Dan. You can figure that out. More power to you. You're more familiar with all the where all the streets are look like if you attach to units, the structure. Would it be in compliance if you attach to units to the existing structure and didn't subdivide the lot? I don't think it is, but you need to give me a minute. I don't think so. I think if this remained one 6,000 square foot lot, the total density is two units. Yeah, because you don't get the exception anymore. You're still because you still need two. So it's one dwelling unit per 3000 square feet of buildable area. That's the density requirement. The only time you can get that exemption under 3002. What was it? C C sorry, C four is if you have a single family home that you convert to a duplex. So they can't get away. They can't avoid the denset 3000 square foot per dwelling unit density requirement. When it's all one lot, because you're not converting a single family to a duplex, you'd be converting a duplex to a four unit. And I think that's a perfectly reasonable. I think a reasonable way to read this is you it's the what's clear is that it's one unit of density per 3000 square feet of buildable space. There's an exemption for if you have a single family house on a conforming lot, you can convert into duplex. We have we don't have that. We don't have a single family residence existing or proposed. I mean, and so, you know, so to convert the garages to living units would be a total violation. Correct. I think in some respects, a subdivision creates a non conformity. I mean, this is the murder. It's not a subdivision. You're just gonna know I know. No, it would be. Yeah, they only they have maxed out as far as density as it actually right at the corner of the R 3000 and the R 6000 your neighbor across the street is R 6000. On the other side of Whittier, on the other side, you're heading heading up Main Street. Yes, I mean, what authority do we have to if we were inclined to say, given the this exception and given the fact that we think that the existing circumstances fall in line with the purpose behind the exception, if we wanted to to grant this subdivision, what would that entail? Would we waive the density? Would we say we're essentially gonna? I mean, I don't know. What? What are our options there? Um, I don't think you are necessarily waiving the density. You're making use of the exception under 3000 to see. I think I don't think it's a I don't think it's a waiver per se. It's a it's an exception in the rules. But now what that does for honestly, what that does for lot two, right? Yeah, it seems like if that's the reasoning behind allowing the duplex on lot one, then would be hard pressed to say you can't also have a duplex on proposed law, right? If it's if it fits the facts for lot one, right, it doesn't fit the facts for lot two. You can't use the same exception to get the same result because you have an existing both two family. Mm hmm. Correct. And then you have a newly created lot for which an application for a single family, which will we haven't gotten all we've gotten the application for is subdivision. Correct. And it's it's this is this is the the conundrum I had in trying to write this as to what the options are. It's it's an issue with the drafting. But I think we can put off the conundrum on a lot two to another day. Because what we're doing now is creating a new lot. We're not putting a subdivision in there or a single family or anything, or doghouse or whatever, what have you. But I mean, we'll have at some point, we're going to have to deal with that. But it's not today. It's not with this application. Would we have the other? Sorry. I was trying to pose the question. If the subdivision were reviewed and approved, what permit would the applicant need to develop lot two? They would need a whole new zoning permit application. Yeah, but that wouldn't come before us, right? That's with the RBF jurisdiction over zoning permit application. Good point. Good point. No, not if it's not if it's a single family, the only thing that would be of right would be a single family. And I don't know what is it clear what the process is for this exception 2002 C4B exception. Does that come to the DRB? Is it a conditional use or just says these are just part of the general standards? I would think it would be the zoning administrator's call. Good point. Just strange. Oh, great. I mean, usually like an exception like this, you it would go it would be like upon findings that it meets the conditional use standards or something where the DRB can exercise its discretion to allow an exception from the density standards for just to say you may do it. It's it's to the extent we're saying the exception undermines the whole purpose of the rule. I mean, in a lot of ways, it's that's how it's written to undermine the whole purpose of the rule. Except I mean, this is kind of this goes back to my initial point about even the subdivision itself. I mean, right now this lot conforms with its closer in conformance with its neighbor in the R 6000. Because it's it's a 6000 square foot lot. And it's got two units on there. So if they subdivided and each mean now we're we're shoehorning using this to shoehorn that two units into one 3000 square foot lot when it wasn't a single family. It was was a double it was a two family on a conforming lot. And we're creating a non conformance and then using this as a curative for that. It's a non conformance but it's something that is conceivably allowed in that in that sense, it's not so clearly contrary to the purposes of the zoning district that I don't I feel like given the situation it's not unreasonable to request the subdivision and it's not reasonable to approve it with that caveat but it does raise concerns about this becoming the standard where if you came in got a zoning permit as a matter of right one week for a single family dwelling before even constructing the single family dwelling so we want to convert our approved single family dwelling into a duplex and that goes to the zoning administrator and there's no discretion denied then the next week you get a permit for a duplex and that is seems like inconsistent at best with concerted plan is I mean if that's the case then yeah you would why not just have 1500 square foot density you know so may just make one reminder this is sketch plan yeah so you have time you don't have to come to a final conclusion tonight yeah but I I think a vigorous discussions helpful for the applicants so they don't have to spend agreed hoping the the council is keeping an eye on this because you know we are going to be dealing with this for the foreseeable future and there's a lot of awkwardness with this new ordinance yes and I have been working with Mike Miller the planning director on where there are issues and I will definitely bring this conversation to his attention we knew it was a problem which is why I highlighted it in the staff report but I'm not sure we had followed down all of the avenues you're discussing today our lot is actually almost identical to Bob's lot next to us and he's going to be building a duplex in the same sort of spot that we propose the difference with his lot is he has this bank and then this lower yard but our frontage on Main Street is almost identical yeah it's very similar I mean the the problem is he has 7000 square feet on his new lot that he's got that extra extra land and you know this is your lot 7,072 square feet just in terms of the way it looks and the frontage is it's identical to Bob's so aesthetically if you were looking at both properties probably look very similar in terms of the lots I mean this is the problem is that there was a decision made at the planning commission level to make this a 3000 square foot city council made the decision well I see council passed it but I mean you know the planning commission they know what they're passing where the brain trust that came up with it and then city council approved it and and so to a certain extent I think it's it's just that that's part of the problem is that can you know if I look at the 1500 square foot lot I don't think the the lots are that different than what you're talking about here it's just that the planning commission said this should be a 3000 square foot residential district and they created these little districts and this is part of the problem is you don't have to go far just down to J Street to see people that are you know enabled to build on much smaller and anybody right now can convert a single to a two but you know I mean I guess I guess our feeling was that we would be we would rather be able to build a single at least I mean if we can't do it too if we if that somehow rule does not apply to us then we'd rather be able to at least build a single I mean it makes more sense for us to build a two but it's not not the only way we want to do it because we want to live in it sure and I have an observation about the the tentative site plan that has the parking how many parking spaces are required for two two unit buildings it before total one per unit I'm not certain my aesthetic sense of of what should be and my aesthetic sense of where the parking should be is served by having all the vehicles pointing at main street I mean there's a there's a bank you know I I drive by it every day multiple times and I have for 35 years so I'm familiar with the site okay I understand the difficulty of having one building at on one side of on the south side of the lot and difficulty with placing the other building on the north quadrant in the lot but I'm not sure anyone's purposes are served by having all the parking facing main street is it possible to access the the new proposed lot from main street and have the parking be adjacent to the building such that the parking is not closer to the road than the front line of the building because I think that's what they show behind the front line of the building so it can be next to the proposed or the new structure it just can't be between the front of the new structure and the road is that something that was considered no I mean I think it could physically be done the difficulty is there is that five or six foot grade between the sidewalk down to the level part of the the lot and so that would make for a steep driveway and it ends up with another curb cut across the sidewalk so just to end and if you try to do b71 standards you'd have to come up the sidewalk and then have another 10 or 15 feet you know off the edge of the road that would be level or at five percent so I think by the time I mean we haven't done the calcs but by the time you're done you're well into the lot with a steep drive so I couldn't say right now that it's impossible but I think it would be difficult and possible to have the two parking spaces in lot one and have the other two at the end of the driveway that's existing that was another possibility the two parking spaces in lot one and then no where where the they're proposed yeah and then the other two in the existing driveway at the end that's another possibility but there would still be between the proposed new house and main street yeah they wouldn't improve the the car would be facing a different direction right but they wouldn't improve the aesthetics consideration don what would stop pushing the house forward and putting and snaking the parking spaces to the back we were trying to be minimal impact in a way we were trying to use the existing garage spot it has a foundation already it's down into the ground with the foundation that garage right except it's in the rear setback it's gonna have to be moved anyway isn't it I don't think it gets pretty steep there at the back of the lawn I think we'd have problems you could build it well I mean you tear down the garage and then have the the rear wall of the garage be the back of the building so you you aren't really working on a steep slope unless you put a significant retaining wall in there I think it would be hard to put parking you could put parking under the building you could come in the way we have it and come straight underneath the building but then the desire was to have two floors of usable you all of a sudden have a three-story building which has its own sort of aesthetic issues popping up next to Main Street or you have a two garage you pull straight into and the first floor sits behind and the second floor either sits on top of that first floor or above the garage you know yes you could well I don't yeah yes I mean you could do something like that where the garage were just back of the setback from the Main Street and you're right you drive straight into the garage and either have it detached or underneath a second floor that would work yeah I mean I think at this point this we're just raising the fact that I mean and it's in the staff report that as proposed the parking does not comply with the regulations and so something that you're going to want to think about. The weather seems pretty cloudy and getting any kind of waiver on that which is what we needed to know. Yeah I mean we can't and this is for for the whole thing I know you said like it it'd be helpful to know whether or not we're even comfortable approving the subdivision but at this point there's we can't make any sort of binding decisions so even if all of us said today in sketch plan yeah we feel pretty comfortable allowing a 3,000 square foot lot with an existing duplex that doesn't preclude us or the board at the final from denying it for that reason you know this is a conversation so we can't give you any actual like certainty as to outcomes for the actual future final approval. I would think that it would increase the likelihood of the outcome right because obviously the next step is spending money right. Right I mean I I guess I in just looking at this I agree with I think both dbw and Don that it makes sense to come off of Whittier as opposed to Main Street. I think from an access point of view it does. We'd be fighting against the terrain which doesn't make any sense. Against the terrain, against the traffic you know Whittier is a much better street to turn in and out of so I mean that's a sensible that's a sensible point it's just I think the the reluctance here and it seems at odds with the the intent of the bylaws to have all the cars lined up along Main Street in front of the house on what's essentially street frontage but I think there's a number of creative ways to get around that. I think I think you have you have seven thousand square feet in the lot I think injecting construction contingencies and the desire to use existing foundation walls to facilitate or minimize the construction expense maybe placing burdens on a lot that doesn't have the topography and other elements that are conducive to that. Do you follow what I mean? We wouldn't know but actually when I spoke to the building department about it we would redo the foundation because we had that same want us to use the existing foundation. Is that what you mean? Yes I guess I'm not I didn't understand. We wouldn't use the existing foundation just the space I mean we would that location right okay okay that's more comforting. Yeah but you're so I think you have some concern about pushing the limits a little bit on that. Well just the old foundation is old. Yes no I understand I know old. I can see all the things of that I understand your dilemma but it would be it would be nice if we had a little more consensus of whether the board is and I can see I could make an argument either way but whether the board is comfortable with the creation of the the lot one with the pre-existing duplex with meeting that the 3,000 square foot density for the district and that sort of seems to be a threshold question if the board's not comfortable with that then we know we don't like that decision but at least we know we'd like not to go through the extra cost if if in the back of your mind you're really thinking that this is the wrong way to go I don't want to talk you out of it but I understand. This is not an idea I'm just speaking as one individual member this would not be the optimal 3,000 square foot parcel that I would think was conducive to a duplex and I'll tell you why that some of that 3,000 square feet is going to be encumbered by an ingress an easement for ingress and ingress to serve lot two so the 3,000 3,000 square feet is going to be further compromised I admittedly the same cars the the parking or the vehicles that would access the building on lot one would be traveling over the same area but that same area could be smaller could be more compatible it the 3,000 some of that square footage could be used for landscaping for screening and things like that but because you're going to double the traffic so to speak on that to access lot two it decreases the availability the practical use of that 3,000 square feet to accommodate two residential uses in that area so I mean it's kind of an unnatural fit there if you had lot two with a different access somewhere else it lot one would would be more compatible for the duplex use so it doesn't mean I'm totally opposed to it but the way it's configured having duplex use on lot one that's then joined with what's what your honest forthrightly want to contemplate as another duplex on lot two and your building constraints on that's the south side I guess because the setback I guess and parking issues and things I I'm just I don't know whether this is the ideal place where I would want to go out on a limb and say yes I think converting this is an appropriate location for that occur I mean just the pattern of development of this lot over many many years it's it's obviously a fairly old building fairly old development do you know when building was built 1890 I'm sorry okay watch it go up Jack I sort of go back I know that Mike mentioned that it is on his map of buildings from 1885 I think it's always been a nettle sum parcel with the nettle sum building there with you know that kind of parking at garage building on the end it's kind of it an anomaly for a lot of the other development up and down main street just my personal view just the four car garage is great for storage but that's about it I understood noise if I had a four car garage I'd probably fill it too thankfully I only have one car garage so just keep the stuff moving out we're not suggesting you convert it to a mini storage place either probably is in violation so frankly I'm I'm very much in favor of infill building proving the tax base your goals are laudable but until my lawyer friends over here can figure out how we can create a non conforming and not not set ourselves up for a whole list of things down the road I have I have extreme trouble with it but I think the chairman's comments are spot on and it's not anything that that can't be with some good planning can't be overcome with regard to parking and that sort of stuff but I'm really troubled by the language we've been given and Mr. Miller better get on his horse and get us some some some idea about how that's going to work and if he's the purveyor of the language then maybe he can help us get through it but I'm I don't like to create non conforming 3000 foot lots period end of sentence it really is on the margins as far as even with the new language which we're still trying to get a handle on and and and understand what the intent was I have to say I stand with my fellow board members in in that the concept is as jack says laudable but there are a lot of questions that are raised by this specific site and this specific project when one thing I'm I mean it while we're talking about parking minimums can't require you to have more than the minimum if you do you do but I think one of the concerns here is that you're baking into this really only the minimums for the parking you know because you're you're filling up and this this 7 000 square foot lot is going to be as full as possible with not a square to spare and I think that is going to be a little bit different than you know even the bob gallons lot that's been subdivided next to it they each have excess land and they haven't built even though they're going to put a duplex on there they haven't built to the margins in the same way and that's just a concern I think part of that concern that I raise is that it can be addressed by good design if it's clear that this is you know a thoughtful use of this land you know things such as the parking issue you know I not only speak for myself you know certainly if the only issue was the application of this very technical rule about subdividing and what it would look like at the end I think if it was for a good design that made sense not only for the lot but the immediate neighborhood I'd have a lot more comfort with the broader application that being urged but I think I'm echoing everyone else's sentiment and I don't mean to be redundant because I think you know and at core this is something where we we're really talking about creating this very small slice of 1500 square foot lot in the middle of a 3000 square foot zoning district that that's going to look inconsistent. It's still a 3000 square foot lot that's left actually 3500 and we wouldn't build any bigger a house on it than a single family dwelling. This single family that was converted into two two-bedroom apartments would be about the same size as what we would propose two two-bedroom apartments so we wouldn't it wouldn't be a 1500 square foot lot. Right and all we've done here is sort of skew perhaps the conversation by saying potentially we would do two units right but just as likely we would do one unit it just financially makes more sense to do two right but it it doesn't preclude us from doing one unit so what if right now that's the that that was the the extent of the discussion or the limit of it that it was just for one single family home. I mean you still have the problem with it's that you're having three units of density for which usually would require 9 000 square feet on a total square footage of 7 000 square feet and and I think the language I think technically you can't take advantage of an exception for single family dwellings if you don't have a single family dwelling. If you already have a duplex that exception doesn't apply. That said as I said earlier and I think I sort of echo what Dan's saying there's other there's other issues with this which we've raised it clearly doesn't comply with the plain language of the parking requirements there's some you know issues there. I think that exception it's but it would so as I said it's not a single family dwelling you can't take you know advantage of an exception for single family dwellings that said it doesn't make sense to ignore the existence of the exception as we're reviewing the application that's before us if you know through the course of the regulations a duplex is allowed a bull on 3 000 square feet in the zoning district I have less concerns about approving it as a a pre-existing non-conforming law in the subdivision but as I say there's other issues I don't know that's that's my weather report as one individual if this were just up to me I I'm not I'm not going to say I would approve it but I'm not going to say that I wouldn't either I think given the circumstances it's it's a reasonable ask but I do think there's other there's other issues that need to be addressed as well in the application and so the decision I don't think we're going to make it much easier on you on this decision as to whether you with it being too gray because I don't want to spend thousands of dollars on a we can we can't make it clear for you but aren't we supposed to be able to have an idea of what it would take to get an approved application when we leave this process I think what you're hearing from the board is that we're we like you are are working with this brand new ordinance and as we start digging into getting into the weeds we're discovering there are little surprises there that we weren't certainly weren't anticipating and trying to get an absolutely crystal clear reading from from us when we're looking at this for the very first time isn't going to happen I'm sorry but it just isn't I did Don there's also the issue of storm water I mean if if your plan and ball it envisions sending whatever storm water you have departing from the site down to gallons property it's really not a it's not a long-term solution that the ordinance project well I guess I'm confused by that I mean we already have significant storm water that goes there because of the garage the garage will go away and perhaps we need an easement that would cement that but I mean if there's a storm water collection system that's available that goes to the city system why wouldn't that be acceptable I mean I I can't see that on a 3,000 square foot lot that you're going to treat storm water any differently than what happens now in most cases it's going to run off and go wherever it goes the rest of the city which ends up in the city system eventually this swale behind it would preclude it from getting into the neighbor's backyard behind us the applicant shall design the subdivision so that there will be positive drainage away from building sites and a coordinated storm water drainage pattern for the subdivision that does not concentrate storm water storm water drainage from each lot to adjacent lots well the fact is but I understand it's you can't I mean sort of putting in a collection system you can't meet that without somehow getting it to directly to a city drain I mean if we go to a swale that exists that goes to city we have an easement for that is that a doesn't well if you have an easement then it precludes us having any concern about it okay so if we have a a conveyance system for which we have access I would comply well we I read the words are on the page and it says you're not you're not going to create a subdivision that sends your storm water onto adjacent lots if you have an easement from the adjacent lots then you have their participation I mean this is I would say that's another thing that Mr. Miller's got to work on because that I can think of all sorts of lots that would make it pretty impossible to think that you're going to have any lot that's downhill of a city street short of getting an easement is going to be very difficult to comply with that that may be I this lot in particular I mean Mr. Gallans was just in here a few weeks ago getting his subdivision and I know that back corner he was talking about is a potential access point so I think it goes all the way to Whittier street right is that the he actually has about a four to eight foot strip that goes directly behind Joe and Lucy's house to Whittier but the the swale is down below that it's it's in behind where the garage is it's not it doesn't extend all the way to that behind their house I mean there's another point going to to Ryan's point which is I just want to be very clear about what I'm going to say next which is that it's not matter of having to to do that to come forward but some of these problems might be alleviated or eased if there was some sort of easement on some of Gallans backland or neighbors backland that wasn't going to be developed for the purposes of counting for density in your zoning which is to say he's got us and this is completely off the text and I'm not saying that this is anything we would ever get involved in it's just simply because it's sketch plan that you know sometimes what will happen is neighbors will this happens in a lot more in a lot mergers but where a portion of a undeveloped lot is attached for purposes of zoning because the density is all about counting the open space as well as a developed space and so part of that might become tied up in this whether it be but through a fee simple transfer or boundary redesign or just simply an easement um it's something it's a little outside of the box can you can you use an easement for density I don't I wouldn't be comfortable I wouldn't be comfortable using land over which you have an easement that seems a lot to me well I'm maybe a 99 year lease now we're we've had plenty of too far out of the box remember the Lackey's tourist home we had that that sliver between the two right and they had to work out a way to take care of that stormwater that was going to come from the shed and not affect the White House next door and they they they figured out how to do it and present a plan that we accept so I mean I want to take a look at the stormwater on any any particular lot especially since it's on the side he offered to allow us the easement and maybe it's maybe it's a lease or an easement I I'm only throwing it out there that would be something you'd have to probably call in some some help on Don um but it's just one idea understand thank you so going back to the sort of proposed single family home I think I heard an option that the the parking would be could potentially would be driving into the building so if that was the case that would alleviate the parking on the lot itself right and yeah and I there's also just looking at the um in these in these bylaws you know under 21 2109 E2 it says the principal entrance for how dwelling and building in in R3000 shall open onto a street sidewalk plaza or public green space and shall not open onto a parking lot which I think if you have that parking area right in front of the house and the main entrance comes out onto it it's just something in the design that has to be considered so if the parking was in the house that would cure that would open up to something that's not parking oh the entrance of the house the primary entrance of the building under 2109 the primary instance if we did a garage in the front on main street no no what would be facing three would be facing the side of the house at Three Whittier I mean that would be an odd place to I mean that's if we rotated the house and had a drive-in garage which would meet the aesthetics issue the side of the garage is on main the logical place the front door would then be facing uh their existing house so it wouldn't face a sidewalk or a street or or a walkway I think they build a walkway that way yeah as sidewalk street plaza or public green space shall not open onto I think the main and again this is another perhaps standard that's not as clear but I think the idea is that it shouldn't open onto a parking area which is as the as currently designed so but I think building the garage cures that and then you can be creative as to how it walk how the walkway works so what is the I'm getting a little confused with all the discussion about how we would design the house and parking as to what would the final plan be approving for us it would be approving a building permit as well and parking and everything or is it just the subdivision and just a little confused about what we're ultimately getting approval for this this is just the subdivision and but part of that discussion is whether or not the new lot that you're creating is even buildable can can be built on within the rules okay so and that's why you you proposed a parking area right in the the plan okay so we could see how it might work you have to propose something that can work yeah yeah I mean we don't have to have a final building plan for a building but because the lot has limitations where it's not a lot in the abstract very much in its circumstances we would need to have these these issues so like right now to have those resolved such as the parking space that is out front and I was just raising the other issue that goes along with having all those parking spaces out out front creating essentially sort of a parking lot type so I think when Meredith had met with DPW is that who suggested the option of putting it under the building well both Department of Public Works and Mike Miller both thought that that was a potential solution for parking was to put it under the building we hadn't dug down into where the potential houses front entrance would open onto because that would be something to look at more under a zoning permit or building permit we had quite gotten that far because we were running into other issues yeah but it does but it isn't excuse me no it's okay go ahead Don DBW's comments I mean they're sort of asking for a site plan in order to get the subdivision well I mean I think this is a difference than say like a subdivision out in the rural district where you're dividing subdividing 40 acres into 20 acre lots where you know you don't have to have a great imagination to understand there are a wide variety of places to build here it's so small and given the constraints of the geography and the topography as well as the existing house the existing driveway things you want to do it is sort of pushing you to be a little bit more specific and that's and that's all it's a fine line I think it's a good question because it's a fine line between what what you're being asked to do for subdivision to show that this is available a lot and I mean on top of that is the idea that you're not just subdividing this lot and selling it off you're actually going to be be building so it in some ways it may make sense for you to think this through because you wouldn't want to create a lot plan that would tie you to a certain type of building or footprint that wouldn't make sense for you since just from a practical point of view which is we can approve we can approve something you know like I said you could snake that driveway back there and and just let the next person to own it deal with it but you seem to want to divide it and and use it yourselves so you should you should make you should be a little bit more thoughtful because you want I mean we had the whole thing designed a year ago and then Mike said wait because the rules are going to change and so we waited a year and then we were where we were and Audra said maybe this is what you should do instead so we're sort of following the lead of people we trust and we're just going with the process and hoping that it works out in a way that gives us more than the four car storage units great but you know we would certainly be thoughtful about design obviously we've done a lot of work to the house and we care about design I own the Cheshire Cat in town we have another rental property on Elm Street you know we we like being landlords we believe in development actually and so of course we'd be very thoughtful about how it how it is and we want to live in it so right I think you've answered as many questions as I think you can appreciate thank you well thanks for coming in I don't know are we going to get any sort of final thoughts on where we are feel very vague it feels very vague I know you can't give us a I know you're not making a decision but is it likely to be I can't be I can't be less vague than I've been already so I'll be even more direct I'm not impressed by the project but I'm just one member of the board and you know the next time if if you take this it's it's a tentative plan that Don is not devoted a lot of time I don't think or effort to he gave a rough sketch of what you could possibly do there based upon the parcel itself and unfortunately sketch plan is just based upon a sketch which is not a final plan and so you elicited my response I drive past the property several times every day and I have for 35 years so I'm not unfamiliar with the site and what it can be and what has happened at other sites up and down Main Street and I've been doing this for a couple of years as well so I'm not I'm not wild-eyed when it comes to looking at plans and development and things like that I tend to support development when it's done within the constraints of the zoning ordinance and when the design and the thought and the appearance and the overall benefit to communities seem to be served and I I don't feel like what I've seen tonight accomplishes that that's not very vague is it no that was pretty clear that sounded like a no to me so sounded like we'd have to present something very different in order to get an approval I'm just one member we're a seven-member board and there's at least three other individuals who aren't here tonight we want to do something that's allowed we're not trying to skip through some you know we thought this was appropriate and allowed or we wouldn't have spent any time at all on it actually because that's just a waste of our time too so I mean we really thought it was allowed we weren't trying to get away with something I mean potentially you now have four garages which is unusual for as you said Main Street right so instead of that you could have a single family there that would address the limitations right and I get it it's not the ideal lot but it probably will be very similar to what Bob does right next door I wasn't here that evening so I'm not familiar with his with that plan thank you thanks thank you did I understand that there was a notice that we're not meeting on July 2 correct is just nothing nothing pending or is it um there isn't going to be enough staff I will be out of state and there is no available backup staff oh yeah that's July 4th probably okay I get it and that was I would not have scheduled that but that was scheduled before I was hired and so our next regularly scheduled meeting is Monday July 16th any other business to come before us do I hear motion to adjourn so moved motion by Kevin second second by Jack all those in favor of the motion please signify by raising your right hands thank you we are adjourned